24 James Waterston, 



DocopJioriis ostralegl Denny (1842). 



D. ostralegi Denny, Monogr. Anopl. Brit., p. 74, tab. 5, fig. 4 (1842). 

 D. acanthus Giebel, Ins. Epiz., p. 101 (1874). 



— PiAGET, Les Pediculines, p. 84, tab. 6, fig. 6 (1880). 



3 (^(^, 2 $$, 4 imm. Haematopus ostralegus, 3 Expl., Langesand, 

 Gjanoyri, Strömnaes 3., 13., 15./8. 1812. K. Scheeiber leg-. 



Within the genus Docophorus tlie species found oii Limosa, Haema- 

 topus, Larus, SquataroJa etc. form a compact group of which no 

 member is more distinct tliaii the parasite of tlie oystercatcher 

 (H. ostralegus). Giebel's D. acanthus refers unquestionably to Denny's 

 insect. Piaget rejects the name ostralegi, presumably because it is 

 founded on that of the host. He also considers that D. naumanni 

 Giebel is a synonym of the acanthus of that author. Neither de- 

 cision can, we think, stand. The first is plainly arbitrary, as regards 

 the second we can only say that the Docophorus which is normally 

 attached to the Grey Plover is very different from D. ostralegi D. 

 No doubt there is a strong superficial resemblance but this remark 

 would apply to all the group "Lati temporal es" of Piaget. 



Docophorus seniisif/natus Nitzsch (1818). 



D. semisignatus Nitzsch, in: Giebel, Ins. Epiz., p. 80, tab. 9, figs. 9 

 and 14 (1874). 



— Denny, Monogr. Anopl. Brit., p. 66, tab. 1, fig. 5 (1842). 



In his well known list (in: Germar's Magazine, Vol. 3, p. 261 

 et seq.) Nitzsch (1818) gave the Docophorus infesting the Eaven 

 the name semisignatus and in 1874, Giebel (1. c.) who had access to 

 Nitzsch's types, published a description with figures of this insect. 



In the interim a D. semisignatus had been reported from Corvus 

 corax first by Buemeister (Handbuch, Abt. 2, pt. 2, p. 424) in 1839, 

 and again by Denny (1. c.) in 1842. 



Piaget, however, (Les Pediculines p. 148) in 1880 without 

 apparently having seen either Nitzsch's types or fresh specimens 

 of Docophorus from Raven decided that semisignatus N. is not a good 

 species but only a variety of D. atratus N. or D. ocellatits N. At 

 the same time he described a new species, D. albidus, from Corvus 

 scapulatus. 



We have dealt with tliis matter elsewhere (in: Trans. Perthshire 

 Soc. nat. Sc, Vol. 5, pt. 4, p. 126—127, 1912) and have as yet seen 

 no reason to alter the conclusions there reached viz.: 



